dimanche, 13 novembre 2016

The Clintons and Soros launch America’s Purple Revolution

By Wayne Madsen

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to «go quietly into that good night». On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic «Blue America» and Republican «Red America» into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros’s «Purple Revolution» in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

It is doubtful that President Trump’s aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump’s most loyal supporters.

America’s globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military «experts» opposed Trump’s candidacy, Trump is «required» to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such «experts» among Trump’s inner circle of advisers. Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush’s White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump’s White House team. There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump’s senior- and middle-level positions.

Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

«Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton’s two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia’s very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited ‘containment’ policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton’s administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton».

President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump’s policies but seek to continue to damage America’s relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama’s lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and «Black Lives Matter», broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

The Soros-financed Russian singing group «Pussy Riot» released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled «Make America Great Again». The video went «viral» on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros’s Purple Revolution in America.

President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

One of Trump’s political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of «a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities». Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as «anti-Semitic». President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros’s son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros’s tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.

dimanche, 10 juillet 2016

Pat Harrington

President Hillary – Be Afraid, Very Afraid

Ex: https://www.righton.net

By examining Hillary Clinton's foreign policy record, Pat Harrington concludes that she is a warmonger who favours more US intervention across the globe.

We know quite a bit about Clinton and her foreign policy. What we know indicates that she is a warmonger and interventionist – as bad as any Republican ‘hawk’. I believe that her record on foreign policy should concern not just Americans but the world. A Clinton presidency is likely to lead to confrontations around the globe.

During her period in the Senate (2001-2008), she sat on the Armed Services Committee. The Village Voicedubbed her ‘Mama Warbucks’ in 2005. Clinton voted for war against Iraq and peddled the same lies as Tony Blair and his dodgy dossier. In a speech to the Senate in 2002 she said:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…

It was not until December 2006, as she began her first presidential campaign, that she changed her position by blaming her original viewpoint on bad intelligence during a spot on NBC’s Today programme. ‘If we knew then what we know now, I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way’, she said in reference to her initial support for the Iraq War.

When Clinton was US Secretary of State between 2009 and 2013, she showed the same eagerness for threatening or for the actual use of force. Anne-Marie Slaughter, Clinton’s Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, said of her, ‘When the choice is between action and inaction, and you’ve got risks in either direction, which you often do, she’d rather be caught trying.’ She is therefore an interventionist by nature.

To give you an understanding of what this interventionist instinct brings about, I want to look at some of the countries she has directed it toward and its consequences.

Honduras

In 2009, the State Department supported the CIA-backed coup against Honduras’ democratically elected President, Manuel Zelaya.

E-mails subsequently released from Clinton’s time as Secretary of State show that some of her top aides urged her to dub the putsch a military coup and to cut off US aid. She refused to do so. Instead, the US pushed for the world to recognise the coup’s new government.

In her memoir, Hard Choices, she described the events in Honduras as a ‘victory for democracy’.

The coup was followed by a wave of political violence which targeted a range of activists. Statistics from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) show that the murder rate increased from 60.8 per 100,000 in 2008 to 81.8 in 2010 following the coup, continuing to increase to 91.4 in 2011 and remaining high at 90.4 in 2012. Honduras is now a corrupt narco-state.

Kosovo

During the 1999 Kosovo War, in which Bill Clinton called in NATO to bomb Belgrade (resulting in 500 civilian deaths), Hillary, whilst traveling in Africa, telephoned her husband to offer him some advice. ‘I urged him to bomb’, she told reporter Lucinda Frank. As First Lady from January 1993, she encouraged her husband, and later also his Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, to attack Serbian forces in the disintegrating Yugoslavia – not just in Bosnia in 1994 but also in Serbia in 1999.

When Hillary Clinton visited Pristina as Secretary of State, her support for Kosovo was clear: “For me, my family and my fellow Americans this is more than a foreign policy issue,” she affirmed. “It is personal.”

Whilst the case for some form of intervention in Kosovo is more hotly debated than those in other areas, the events which led to the recognition of the state by President George W Bush had unintended consequences. At the time, Russian President Putin said:

The precedent of Kosovo is a terrible precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of international relations, developed not over decades, but over centuries. They have not thought through the results of what they are doing. At the end of the day it is a two-ended stick and the second end will come back and hit them in the face.

The Republic of Crimea proclaimed its independence from Ukraine on 11 March 2014, citing the Kosovo precedent.

Afghanistan

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton supported the ‘surge’ in Afghanistan: she supported sending a further 40,000 US troops there (on top of the 70,000 which were already present).

Despite the high level of civilian casualties, Clinton has long been a strong supporter of drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In an interview with The Guardian in July 2014, Clinton said:

Clearly, the efforts that were made by the United States, in cooperation with our allies in Afghanistan and certainly the Afghan government, to prevent the threat that was in Pakistan from crossing the border, killing Afghans, killing Americans, Brits and others, was aimed at targets that had been identified and were considered to be threats. The numbers about potential civilian casualties I take with a somewhat big grain of salt because there has been other studies which have proven there not to have been the number of civilian casualties. But also in comparison to what? The Pakistani armed services were always saying, ‘Well, let us bomb these places.’ That would have been far more devastating in terms of casualties. But of course anyone who is an innocent bystander, especially a child, who’s caught up in any operation against terrorists, that is a cause of great concern and it is a cause of real disappointment and regret on our part.

Armed conflict in Afghanistan continues. Afghanistan now produces around 90 per cent of the world’s heroin. The Taliban had banned the production of opium in 2000.

Syria

In 2011, as Arab regimes were overthrown in the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, Hillary’s State Department decided to withdraw diplomatic recognition of Syria. The US began to help the armed opposition, secretly at first. Although there was much talk of assisting a ‘moderate opposition’, it soon became clear that the ‘allies’ Clinton wanted to use to topple the secular Syrian regime were radical Islamists aligned with the al-Nusra Front, a branch of al-Qaeda. Yet, even now, Clinton defends US intervention in Syria, speaking of a ‘failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad – there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle – the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.’ Clinton expresses no regret over the civil war she helped start in Syria. Her only regret is that more arms and ammunition were not supplied to her favoured side. In recent debates, Clinton has advocated a no-fly zone over Syria: ‘ I am advocating the no-fly zone both because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians; I’m also advocating it because it gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia.’ The potential for conflict with Russia and Iran, both of whom are supporting the Syrian government, is both obvious and frightening.

The result of her policies toward Syria is that millions of Syrians have been displaced, and that refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean or else threatening the stability and identity of Greece, Turkey, and the European Union itself. Not to mention the fact that ISIS has a base in Syria from which to launch terrorist attacks across the world.

Libya

Clinton was an enthusiastic player in the destruction of the Libyan state by the US and NATO during 2011. Robert M Gates, the Secretary of Defense at the time, described President Obama’s decision to intervene as a ’51-49′ proposition, adding, ‘I’ve always thought that Hillary’s support for the broader mission in Libya put the president on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach.’ It started with a ‘no-fly zone’, allegedly to protect civilians and dressed-up in all kinds of humanitarian language, and ended with a US-led bombing campaign which killed over 1,100 civilians. Her humanitarianism was absent in an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer. She was asked about the brutal murder of Col. Gadaffi by jihadists (after being sodomised with a knife on camera). Paraphrasing Julius Caesar, she said, ‘We came, we saw, he died!’ amidst much laughter and chuckling.

The result of her policies in Libya is that the country descended into civil war. Unsecured arms stashes in Libya soon spread west across the African Sahel and east to Syria. The Libyan catastrophe has led to war in Mali, made more weapons available to Boko Haram in Nigeria, and assisted ISIS in Syria and Iraq. One could also reference the persecution of Black Africans and Tuaregs within Libya and the emergence of Benghazi as a jihadist stronghold.

NATO

As Senator in 2008, Hillary co-sponsored2008-SR439, which called to integrate Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. Whilst Clinton was Secretary of State, two more countries, Albania and Croatia, joined the US-dominated alliance. Many Russians believe they are now surrounded by an anti-Russian military alliance along their borders, stretching from the Baltic states in the north to Romania and Bulgaria. Clinton favours even further expansion.

Israel

As Secretary of State, Clinton oversaw the Obama Administration’s first attempt to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. She took a stance against Jewish settlements on land claimed by the Palestinians. However, in her memoir she noted that ‘[o]ur early hard line on settlements didn’t work.’

During her last year as Secretary of State, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz characterised her as ‘Israel’s new lawyer’ in response to her sympathetic view toward Binyamin Netanyahu’s 2014 bombardment of Gaza and his desire to maintain ‘security’ throughout the occupied West Bank.

The United States and Israel must be closer than ever, stronger than ever, and more determined than ever to overcome our common adversaries and advance our shared values. […] We will never allow Israel’s adversaries to think a wedge can be driven between us,” she said, explaining that when the U.S. and Israel have differences, she would work quickly to resolve them.

Clinton further added that America and Israel ‘must take our alliance to the next level’ through reaching a new 10-year memorandum of understanding on defence ‘as soon as possible’.

Iran

Clinton still publicly favours the Iran nuclear deal. In fact, she has claimed that it was her work to impose ‘crippling sanctions’ that forced Iran to the negotiating table. She said that the deal ‘put a lid’ on the Iranian nuclear programme by increasing Iran’s potential breakout time and creating new verification measures. Nevertheless, she said that the approach to Iran should be ‘distrust and verify’.

This deal must come with vigorous enforcement…and a broader strategy to confront Iran’s aggression across the region,” said Clinton. “We cannot forget that Tehran’s fingerprints are on almost every conflict across the Middle East….There’s a big difference between talking about holding Tehran accountable and actually doing it…. The United States will act to stop [Iranian violations of the nuclear deal] and we will do so with force if necessary.

China

A Clinton presidency is a concern to China.

The State Department’s traditional stance was that ‘we take no position’ on the Sino-Japanese dispute concerning sovereignty over the Senkaku/Daioyutai islands in the East China Sea, which had been seized by Japan in 1895. As Secretary of State, Clinton departed from this by emphasising that the islands fall within the defence perimeter of the US-Japanese alliance.

In a 2011 interview, Clinton attacked China’s ‘deplorable’ human rights record, calling the government’s efforts to crack down on dissent ‘a fool’s errand’. China is wary of the way in which human rights issues are used tactically by the United States to sow dissent abroad and soften domestic public opinion for confrontation. No fools, those Chinese!

In 2010, she intervened in the South China Sea disputes at the ASEAN Regional Forum. Beginning by stating that Washington had no stake in the territorial disputes, she then laid out US interests in the South China Sea: ‘[A] national interest in freedom of navigation, open access to Asia’s maritime commons, and respect for international law in the South China Sea.’ Clinton further said that ‘legitimate claims to maritime space in the South China Sea should be derived solely from legitimate claims to land features’. China took this to mean that the US views the nine-dash line, which encircles almost all of the South China Sea, as not a ‘legitimate claim’.

China’s then-Foreign Minister, Yang Jiechi, walked out of the meeting. When he returned, he told the ASEAN members, ‘China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that’s just a fact.’

China is deeply suspicious of Clinton and her views on rebalance which were set out in her 2011 Foreign Policy article, ‘America’s Pacific Century’. China views this as part of a strategy of containment.

Conclusion

A brief look at the record and statements of Hillary Clinton shows how frightening the prospect of her becoming the American President is. Her confrontational instinct has led only to misery and death. We should all be very concerned about this woman gaining one of the most powerful positions in the world. My next article will explore whether Donald Trump is a better choice.

For some time I have been hammering at the theme that the main cultural and political problem of our time is not “secular humanism.” The problem with making secularism the central focus of opposition is that, by itself, secularism would totally lack the fanaticism, the demonic energy, the continuing and permanent drive to take over and remake the culture and the society, that has marked the left for two centuries. Logically, one would expect a secular humanist to be a passive skeptic, ready to adapt to almost any existing state of affairs; David Hume, for example, a philosophic disaster but quietly benign in social and political matters, would seem to be typical. Hardly a political and cultural menace.

No: the hallmark and the fanatical drive of the left for these past centuries has been in devoting tireless energy to bringing about, as rapidly as they can, their own egalitarian, collectivist version of a Kingdom of God on Earth. In short, this truly monstrous movement is what might be called “left-post-millennialist.” It is messianic and post-millennialist because Man, not Christ or Providence, is supposed to bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth (KGE), that is, in the Christian version, that Christ is only supposed to return to earth after Man has established the 1,000-year KGE. It is leftist because in this version, the KGE is egalitarian and collectivist, with private property stamped out, and the world being run by a cadre or vanguard of Saints.

During the 1820s, the Protestant churches in the Northern states of the U.S. were taken over by a wave of post-millennial fanatics determined to impose on local, state, and federal governments, and even throughout the world, their own version of a theocratic statist KGE. A “Yankee” ethnocultural group had originated in New England, and had migrated to settle the northern areas of New York and the Middle-Western states. The Yankees were driven by the fanatical conviction that they themselves could not achieve salvation unless they did their best to maximize everyone else’s: which meant, among other features, to devote their energies to instituting the sinless society of the KGE.

These newly mainstream Yankee Protestant churches were always statist, but the major emphasis in the early decades was the stamping out of “sin,” sin being broadly defined as virtually any form of enjoyment. By the later years of the nineteenth century, however, economic collectivism received increasing attention by these left millennialist Protestants, and strictly theological and Christological concerns gradually faded away, culminating in the explicitly socialistic Social Gospel movement in all the Protestant churches. While every one of the Yankee Protestant denominations was infected and dominated by left millennialism, this heresy prevailed almost totally in the Methodist Church.

SAINT HILLARY

Which brings us to our beloved First Couple. I have already mentioned that Slick Willie, in addressing a black Gospel church in Maryland on behalf of God’s alleged commandment to pass his crime bill, revealingly told the assembled congregation that the goal of his “ministry” is to bring about “the Kingdom of God on earth.” That should have sounded the fire alarm throughout the nation. Unfortunately, to an American public possessing little knowledge of history or theology, Clinton’s remarkable statement went unreported.

Hillary’s pronouncement is not as absurd as it might first seem. Hillary Rodham was born in northern Illinois Yankee country, in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. Her grandparents told stories about their Methodism in early-nineteenth-century England, not many generations removed from the founding of Methodism by John Wesley. Hillary’s family were pious Methodists, and Hillary herself was inducted into the Social Gospel by the Rev. Donald Jones, the then youth minister at her Park Ridge First United Methodist Church. I am sure that we are all gratified to learn how Hillary got her start in the cause of “social reform”; as Woodward fondly puts it, the Rev. Jones “developed his privileged suburban students’ social consciences by taking them to visit migrant workers’ children.”

The most important passage in Woodward’s article is his explanation of the importance of Methodism within the American Protestant spectrum: “More than other Protestants, Methodists are still imbued with the turn-of-the-century social gospel, which holds that Christians have been commissioned to build the Kingdom of God on earth.”

Only a few brush-strokes are needed to complete the picture. The Rev. Jones, a frequent visitor to the White House, but who seems at least to have a sense of humor and perspective that the arrogant and self-righteous Hillary totally lacks, puts it this way: Even today, says Rev. Jones, “when Hillary talks it sounds like it comes out of a Methodist Sunday-school lesson.” And: “Hillary views the world through a Methodist lens. And we Methodists knew what’s good for you.”

Now obviously, and of course, a lot of this is Hillary’s drive to “reinvent” herself, that is, to create a duplicitous false image, to make herself less threatening to the angry American public. And surely the late-nineteenth-century Social Gospelers would be horrified at the current multi-gendered, condomaniacal Clintonian left, to say nothing of the rapid revolving of poor John Wesley in his eighteenth-century English grave. But there is definitely a direct line of descent from the Methodist Social Gospelers of the nineteenth century to St. Hillary and the monstrous Clintonian left. Mix into “old-fashioned Methodism” liberal doses of Marxism, the New Left, the pagan pantheist New Age, and the multicultural and sexual revolutions, stir briskly, and you get the current ruling horror that we all face, and are trying to roll back out of our lives. We face, in short, regardless of what hairdo or persona she affects next week, the evil Witch in the White House.

Funny thing. No matter how western-oriented Eastern Europeans (ooops sorry, "Eastern-Central Europeans") are and how eager they are to distance themselves from the likes of Russians they can never quite get Westerners to see them as anything but Russians-lite.

They can be in NATO and the EU but to fully-fledged Westerners they will always remain a mere poor copies of truly advanced and civilized societies in the west proper. In only the latest reminder of this ex-US president Bill Clinton accused Poland and Hungary of tossing away democracy they only ever enjoyed thanks to the USA in favor of Russian-style "authoritarian dictatorship" and xenophobia:

“Poland and Hungary, two countries that would not have been free but for the United States and the long Cold War, have now decided this democracy is too much trouble,” Clinton said on Friday at a campaign stop for his wife, probable Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. “They want Putin-like leadership: just give me an authoritarian dictatorship and keep the foreigners out.”

Naturally, this historic revisionism took the "Eastern-Central Europeans" aback, but fortunately for them they did not take it lying down. The Hungarians were clear:

Hungary’s Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said it was the Hungarian people who fought for the country’s freedom and Clinton didn’t have the right to snipe at voters who gave power to Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

“No one, not even former U.S. President Bill Clinton can allow himself to insult Hungarian people,” Szijjarto said in an e-mailed statement on Tuesday.

“Bill Clinton may not like the decision of the Hungarian people, but this is no reason for the former American president to offend them,” he added.

The Poles combined their response with some damage control and covering for the American, but if anything they were even more colorful:

Poland’s foreign ministry said in an e-mailed statement that the comments were “unfair,” spoken during a heated election campaign and not in line with the views of President Barack Obama’s administration.

Former Polish Prime Minister Kaczynski, who is also the party’s head, took the criticism of the former US president directly to heart, advising Bill Clinton to have his state of mind checked by a doctor.

“If anyone says there is no democracy in Poland, it means that he is in a state that you need to examine by medical means,” Kaczynski told a briefing on Tuesday, as cited by TASS.

“I can say only one thing – that the media, various factors in the world, triggered a situation of a giant misunderstanding. Perhaps it affects the consciousness of the former president of the United States,” he added, trying to downplay the sharp tone of Clinton’s remark by offering his own explanation. “Otherwise, I cannot explain it to myself,” he concluded.

dimanche, 27 mars 2016

Hillary’s Emails, Gaddafi’s Gold Dinars and Arab Springs

Buried amid tens of thousands of pages of former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s secret emails, now being made public by the US Government, is a devastating email exchange between Clinton and her confidential adviser, Sid Blumenthal. It’s about Qaddafi and the US-coordinated intervention in 2011 to topple the Libyan ruler. It’s about gold and a potentially existential threat to the future of the US dollar as world reserve currency. It’s about Qaddafi’s plans then for the gold-based Dinar for Africa and the Arab oil world.

Two paragraphs in a recently declassified email from the illegal private server used by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the US-orchestrated war to destroy Libya’s Qaddafi in 2011 reveal a tightly-held secret agenda behind the Obama Administration’s war against Qaddafi, cynically named “Responsibility to Protect.”

Barack Obama, an indecisive and weak President, delegated all presidential responsibility for the Libya war to his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Clinton, who was an early backer of an Arab “regime change,” using the secret Muslim Brotherhood, invoked the new, bizarre principle of “responsibility to protect” (R2P) to justify the Libyan war, which she quickly turned into a NATO-led war. Under R2P, a silly notion promoted by the networks of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, Clinton claimed, with no verifiable proof, that Qaddafi was bombing innocent Libyan civilians in the Benghazi region.

According to a New York Times report at the time, citing Obama Administration senior sources, it was Hillary Clinton, backed by Samantha Power, then a senior aide at the National Security Council and today Obama’s UN Ambassador; and Susan Rice, then Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, and now National Security Adviser. That triad pushed Obama into military action against Libya’s Qaddafi. Clinton, flanked by Powers and Rice, was so powerful that Clinton managed to overrule Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Tom Donilon, Obama’s national security adviser, and John Brennan, Obama’s counterterrorism chief, today CIA head.

Secretary of State Clinton was also knee-deep in the conspiracy to unleash what came to be dubbed the “Arab Spring,” the wave of US-financed regime changes across the Arab Middle East, part of the Greater Middle East project unveiled in 2003 by the Bush Administration after occupation of Iraq. The first three target countries of that 2011 US “Arab Spring”–an action in which Washington used its “human rights” NGOs such as Freedom House and National Endowment for Democracy, in cahoots as usual, with the Open Society Foundations of billionaire speculator, George Soros, along with US State Department and CIA operatives–were Ben Ali’s Tunisia, Mubarak’s Egypt and Qaddafi’s Libya.

Now the timing and targeting of Washington’s 2011 “Arab Spring” destabilizations of select Middle East states assume a new light in relation to just-released declassified Clinton emails to her private Libya “adviser” and friend, Sid Blumenthal. Blumenthal is the slick lawyer who defended then-President Bill Clinton in the Monika Lewinsky and other sex scandal affairs when Bill was President and facing impeachment.

Qaddafi’s gold dinar

For many it remains a mystery just why Washington decided that Qaddafi personally must be destroyed, murdered, not just sent into exile like Mubarak. Clinton, when informed of Qaddafi’s brutal murder by US-financed Al Qaeda “democratic opposition” terrorists, told CBS news, in a sick, joking paraphrase of Julius Caesar, “We came, we saw, he died,” words spoken by her with a hearty, macabre laugh.

Little is known in the West about what Muammar Qaddafi did in Libya or, for that matter, in Africa and in the Arab world. Now, release of a new portion of Hillary Clinton’s emails as Secretary of State, at the time she was running Obama Administration war on Qaddafi, sheds dramatic new light on the background.

It was not a personal decision of Hillary Clinton to eliminate Qaddafi and destroy his entire state infrastructure. The decision, it’s now clear, came from circles very high in the US money oligarchy. She was merely another Washington political tool implementing the mandate of those oligarchs. The intervention was about killing Qaddafi’s well-laid plans to create a gold-based African and Arabic currency to replace the dollar in oil trades. Since the US dollar abandoned gold exchange for dollars in 1971 the dollar in terms of gold has dramatically lost value. Arab and African OPEC oil states have long objected to the vanishing purchasing power of their oil sales, mandated since the 1970’s by Washington to be solely in US dollars, as dollar inflation soared more than 2000% to 2001.

In a newly declassified Clinton email from Sid Blumenthal to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dated April 2, 2011, Blumenthal reveals the reason that Qaddafi must be eliminated. Using the pretext of citing an unidentified “high source” Blumenthal writes to Clinton, “According to sensitive information available to this source, Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver… This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).” That French aspect was only the tip of the Qaddafi gold dinar iceberg.

Golden Dinar and more

During the first decade of this century, Gulf Arab OPEC countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others, began seriously diverting a significant portion of the revenues from their vast oil and gas sales into state sovereign wealth funds, many based on the success of Norway’s Oil Fund.

Growing discontent with the US War on Terror, with the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and with overall US Middle East policies after September 2001, led most OPEC Arab states to divert a growing share of oil revenues into state-controlled funds rather than trusting it to the sticky fingers of New York and London bankers as had been the custom since the 1970’s when oil prices went through the roof, creating what Henry Kissinger fondly called the “petro-dollar” to replace the gold-backed dollar Washington walked away from on August 15, 1971. The present Sunni-Shi’ite war or clash of civilizations is in fact a result of the US manipulations after 2003 in the region— “divide and rule.”

By 2008 the prospect of sovereign control by a growing number of African and Arab oil states of their state oil and gas revenues was causing serious concern in Wall Street as well as the City of London. It was huge liquidity, in the trillions, they potentially no longer controlled.

The timing of the Arab Spring, in retrospect, increasingly looks tied to Washington and Wall Street efforts to control not only the huge Arab Middle East oil flows. It is now clear it was equally aimed at controlling their money, their trillions of dollars accumulating in their new sovereign wealth funds.

However, as is now confirmed in the latest Clinton-Blumenthal April 2, 2011 email exchange, there was a qualitatively new threat emerging for Wall Street and the City of London “gods of money,” from the African and Arab oil world. Libya’s Qaddafi, Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Mubarak’s Egypt were about to launch a gold-backed Islamic currency independent of the US dollar. I was first told of this plan in early 2012, at a Swiss financial and geopolitical conference, by an Algerian with extensive knowledge of the project. Documentation was scarce at the time and the story remained in my mental back-burner. Now a far more interesting picture emerges that puts the ferocity of Washington’s Arab Spring and its urgency in the case of Libya into perspective.

‘United States of Africa’

In 2009, Qaddafi, who was at the time the President of the African Union, had proposed that the economically depressed continent adopt the “Gold Dinar.”

In the months prior to the US decision, with British and French backing, to get a UN Security Council resolution that would give them the legal fig-leaf for a NATO destruction of the Qaddafi regime, Muammar Qaddafi had been organizing the creation of a gold-backed dinar that would be used by African oil states as well as Arab OPEC countries in their sales of oil on the world market.

Had that happened at the time Wall Street and the City of London were deep into the financial crisis of 2007-2008, the challenge to the reserve currency role of the dollar would have been more than serious. It would be a death knell to American financial hegemony, and to the Dollar System. Africa is one of the world’s richest continents, with vast unexplored gold and mineral wealth, had been intentionally kept for centuries underdeveloped or in wars to prevent their development. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank for the recent decades have been the Washington instruments to suppress African real development.

Gaddafi had called upon African oil producers in the African Union and in Muslim nations to join an alliance that would make the gold dinar their primary form of money and foreign exchange. They would sell oil and other resources to the US and the rest of the world only for gold dinars. As President of the African Union in 2009, Qaddafi introduced for discussion to African Union member states Qaddafi’s proposal to use the Libyan dinar and the silver dirham as the only possible money for the rest of the world to buy African oil.

Along with the Arab OPEC sovereign wealth funds for their oil, other African oil nations, specifically Angola and Nigeria, were moving to create their own national oil wealth funds at the time of the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya. Those sovereign national wealth funds, tied to Qaddafi’s concept of the gold dinar, would make Africa’s long-held dream of independence from colonial monetary control, whether of the British Pound, the French Franc, the euro or the US dollar, a reality.

Qaddafi was moving forward, as head of the African Union, at the time of his assassination, with a plan to unify the sovereign States of Africa with one gold currency, a United States of Africa. In 2004, a Pan-African Parliament of 53 nations had laid plans for an African Economic Community – with a single gold currency by 2023.

African oil-producing nations were planning to abandon the petro-dollar, and demand gold payment for their oil and gas. The list included Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Tunisia, Gabon, South Africa, Uganda, Chad, Suriname, Cameroon, Mauritania, Morocco, Zambia, Somalia, Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Cote d’Ivoire, plus Yemen which had just made significant new oil discoveries. The four African member-states of OPEC–Algeria, Angola, Nigeria, a giant oil producer and the largest natural gas producer in Africa with huge natural gas reserves, and Libya with the largest reserves–would be in the new gold dinar system.

Little wonder that French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who was given the up-front role in the war on Qaddafi by Washington, went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world.

Hillary’s ‘rebels’ create a central bank

One of the most bizarre features of Hillary Clinton’s war to destroy Qaddafi was the fact that the US-backed “rebels” in Benghazi, in the oil-rich eastern part of Libya, in the midst of battle, well before it was at all clear if they would topple the Qaddafi regime, declared they had created a Western-style central bank, “in exile.”

In the very first weeks of the rebellion, the rebel leaders declared that they had created a central bank to replace Gadhafi’s state-owned monetary authority. The rebel council, in addition to creating their own oil company to sell the oil they captured announced: “Designation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”

Commenting on the odd decision, before the outcome of battle was even decided, to create a western-style central bank to replace Qaddafi’s sovereign national bank that was issuing gold-backed dinars, Robert Wenzel in the Economic Policy Journal, remarked, “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising. This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.”

It becomes clear now in light of the Clinton-Blumenthal emails that those “pretty sophisticated influences” were tied to Wall Street and the City of London. The person brought in by Washington to lead the rebels in March 2011, Khalifa Hifter, had spent the previous twenty years of his life in suburban Virginia, not far from CIA headquarters, after a break with Libya as a leading military commander of Qaddafi.

The risk to the future of the US dollar as world reserve currency, if Qaddafi had been allowed to proceed–together with Egypt, Tunisia and other Arab OPEC and African Union members– to introduce oil sales for gold not dollars, would clearly have been the financial equivalent of a Tsunami.

New Gold Silk Road

The Qaddafi dream of an Arabic and African gold system independent of the dollar, unfortunately, died with him. Libya, after Hillary Clinton’s cynical “responsibility to protect” destruction of the country, today is a shambles, torn by tribal warfare, economic chaos, al-Qaeda and DAESH or ISIS terrorists. The monetary sovereignty held by Qaddafi’s 100% state-owned national monetary agency and its issuance of gold dinars is gone, replaced by an “independent” central bank tied to the dollar.

Despite that setback, it’s more than notable that now an entirely new grouping of nations is coming together to build a similar gold-backed monetary system. This is the group led by Russia and China, the world’s number three and number one gold producing countries, respectively.

This group is tied to the construction of China’s One Belt, One Road New Silk Road Eurasian infrastructure great project. It involves China’s $16 billion Gold Development Fund, and very firm steps by China to replace the City of London and New York as the center of world gold trade. The Eurasian gold system emerging now poses an entirely new quality of challenge to American financial hegemony. This Eurasian challenge, its success or failure, could well determine whether we allow our civilization to survive and prosper under entirely different conditions, or whether we decide to sink along with the bankrupt dollar system.

mercredi, 13 mai 2015

Everyone in Moscow tells you that if you want to understand Russia's foreign policy and its view of its place the world, the person you need to talk to is Fyodor Lukyanov.

Lukyanov is the chair of Russia's Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, as well as the editor-in-chief of the journal Russia in Global Affairs, which are something like the Russian equivalents of America's Council on Foreign Relations and Foreign Affairs — though the Russian versions are considered much closer to the state and its worldview.

Widely considered both an influential leader and an unofficial interpreter of Russia's foreign policy establishment, Lukyanov is frequently sought out by Western policymakers and journalists who wish to understand Russia's approach to the world. During a recent trip to Moscow, Amanda Taub and I met Lukyanov around the corner from the looming Foreign Ministry compound (his office is nearby), at a small Bohemian cafe that serves French and Israeli food to a room packed with gray suits.

We discussed Russia's foreign policy, the country's role in the world, and how its leaders think about the problems and opportunities facing their nation. Lukyanov, hunched over his coffee, had clearly spent a great deal of time with policymakers in and outside of Moscow, and he peppered his answers with references to political science terminology and wonky policy jargon. But he also reflected the official views of Moscow, which makes his answers a revealing glimpse into how his country sees the world.

What follows is a transcript of the section of our conversation that touched on Russia's relationship with the United States. Sections on Russia's approach to the Middle East and on its increasingly dangerous tensions with Europe will be published separately. This has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Max Fisher: We talked earlier about the disagreements within the Russian foreign policy establishment over the Iran nuclear deal. Given that the United States wants to make the deal happen and that there is so much tension currently between the US and Russia, is this affecting the view within Moscow toward the Iran talks? Maybe some people oppose the Iran deal because it would be seen as beneficial to the US, or they support the Iran deal because it could be an opening to ease tensions with Washington?

Fyodor Lukyanov: It's not part of the discussion at all, to decrease tensions with the West. It's not an issue.

Public opinion is pretty mobilized because of Ukraine. A lot of policymakers, even those who used to lean more toward some kind of rapprochement with the West, are irritated by sanctions and so on, so it's not part of the discussion.

So if Russia does something, it's not necessarily to try to explain it as an effort to decrease tensions with the West. It might be a consequence, but it's not the goal.

Max Fisher: It certainly seems that there’s no political appetite in Moscow for a rapprochement with the West. Is that preference widely held within the foreign policy establishment, as well? Or is there a faction that is arguing for rapprochement?

Fyodor Lukyanov: There is a faction, but it’s smaller than it used to be. And even many of those belonging to this faction say that, realistically speaking, they don’t see any options for it in the future, because on the American side there’s a very high level of polarization in the political establishment. And with the election campaigns about to start, it’s the worst time to try to launch something.

No American politician will gain anything positive by being softer on Russia. It’s not a central issue, but maybe candidates could use it in swing states, where many Eastern Europeans [who are generally skeptical of Russia] live.

So I don’t hear any expectations of this, especially since there’s a good chance that Hillary Clinton will become the Democratic candidate. I think there’s a widespread view that with Hillary there would be no chance at all. For her and for her team, since the 1990s, Russia is a failure. One of the biggest failures of Bill Clinton was that he wanted to transform Russia. He was very sincere in his view of how he wanted to transform Russia and to help this transformation, but by the end of his tenure he was terribly disappointed.

Psychologically, for Hillary and for people like [Clinton-era Deputy Secretary of State] Strobe Talbott and many others, Russia is an unfinished job.

Max Fisher: What it is that they want to accomplish?

Fyodor Lukyanov: Many people here believe they will try to come back to the line of the 1990s to encourage Russia into an internal transformation.Max Fisher: Does that mean regime change?

Fyodor Lukyanov: As a long-term goal, yes. Not by force, of course, but to encourage some kind of social development that will upend the current system and will promote a new one.Max Fisher: So it’s expected here that Clinton would take a hostile approach to Russia?

Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes, a very hostile approach. Hillary is the worst option of any president [from the Russian view], maybe worse than any Republican.Max Fisher: Even though she led the US-Russia reset as secretary of state?

Fyodor Lukyanov: She led the reset, but it was done by Obama. She was a disciplined official and did what the White House decided to do. Formally she was in charge, but in real terms she never dealt with this. It was a direct project of Obama and of [former US Ambassador to Russia] Michael McFaul. Hillary pushed the button, but that was just a symbolic move, and then she was never active in this.

By the end of her time as secretary of state, when she’d already announced she would leave, she made a couple of statements without being diplomatic anymore. Statements about Russia, about this re-Sovietization of post-Soviet space, about Putin, that demonstrated her real feelings.

I think there is a widespread view that she personally hates Putin and personally dislikes [Russian Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov. So in the case of her presidency it will be not very good chemistry between them.

Max Fisher: Some people we’ve spoken to have said something similar about Obama — that Obama dislikes Putin, that he’s motivated by personal animus, and that once he leaves office maybe the sanctions will weaken because they’re driven personally by Obama.

Fyodor Lukyanov: There is a widespread view that Obama dislikes Putin very much. It’s obvious they don’t like each other.

I think Obama actually is not at all an emotional person. He looked at first very human and appealing, but he’s not at all. He’s a very calculating and cold guy without a lot of emotions and feelings. I don’t think his personal perception of Putin plays such a big role. He made a big miscalculation because it seemed like he and McFaul really believed [current Russian Prime Minister and former President Dmitry] Medvedev might become president for a second term, which was a wrong expectation. He did not hide disappointment when Medvedev decided to step down.

Obama sees Russia as a big problem that consumes so much of his time that he would like to dedicate to other issues. He mostly would like to keep distance from Russia, to settle the most acute challenges, but after that he doesn't have interest.

The reset was not because he wanted to make Russia the centerpiece of his foreign policy agenda but because actually he failed with other issues. Russia was meant to be supportive and became the biggest achievement, with the reset and the New START [2010 nuclear arms reduction] agreement. But the reset was exhausted by New START and by the Russian accession to the World Trade Organization [in 2012]. They did not have any other agenda. They could have developed a new agenda if the situation had remained favorable as it was under Medvedev, but Putin settled that.

For Obama, Russia turned into a permanent headache. And a headache irritates. It’s not such a strong feeling that other [US] politicians have about Russia.Max Fisher: Let me ask about the flip side of that. How do you think Putin sees the US now?

Fyodor Lukyanov: He’s utterly anti-American, deeply and sincerely. And it’s not about Obama or Bush or Clinton. It’s about his perception of America as a destructive power.

The most interesting foreign policy statement he made was published one week before his third term began in 2012. The article, "Russia and the changing world," was extremely interesting and substantial. He expressed everything that happened after. His core perception was that the United States is a country that misuses its might and creates even more chaos in the contemporary world, which is anyway very chaotic and unpredictable. Americans, by what they do, just worsen the situation.

The idea was not to challenge America, but to protect Russia. This is how he sees the world, with the United States as a really destructive and destabilizing power.

Max Fisher: Is there anything you believe the Russian leadership misunderstands about the United States, or that you wish they understood better?

Fyodor Lukyanov: The Russian leadership has no clue about how the American system works, how complicated it is.

For example, after Putin’s 2011 decision to exchange with Medvedev [in which the two switched positions of prime minister and president], he said, "Look at the United States. Obama and Hillary both ran for the presidency, but then they sat down and decided who would be president, and Obama won that." How the American system works, it’s not a big interest to our leadership.

I think right now there’s a better understanding of the differences between your president and your Congress. Before, it was the perception that the American president can do anything he wants, and all of these references to a hostile Congress are just bullshit. But now I think there’s a better understanding that Congress can be extremely disruptive to whatever the administration is trying to do. This has become another argument that it doesn’t make sense to try with them.

Max Fisher: Is there no effort to play Congress and the president off of one another?

Fyodor Lukyanov: No, because contrary to Europe, where there are all options to use splits, in the United States, Russia has absolutely no influence in Congress. We don’t have a lobby; we don’t have special leverage there.

Max Fisher is Founder, Rushmore Beekeepers.

Fyodor Lukyanov is Chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Editor-in-Chief, Russia in Global Affairs journal, scientific director of the Valdai Discussion Club.

lundi, 04 mai 2015

The Bill Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has taken millions of dollars from foreign governments attempting to buy influence with a woman who might be the next president.

The $2 million contribution from Saudi Arabia, however, is the most troubling. Putting aside that the Saudi’s oppress women, denying them the most basic human rights, the self styled “women’s advocate’ should still return that cash. Money from foreign nationals and foreign governments is illegal in US political campaigns. So the Saudis are using their petro-dollars to buy future influence.

It is worth taking a moment to examine how the Saudi’s have used their vast wealth to effect US foreign policy and have used their influence to hide the facts about the Saudi’s actual role in the events of 9/11 from the American people. In fact, the Saudis have used their power and influence to cover-up their involvement in the greatest terrorist attack in US history and continue to do so today.

In fact, the Saudis have used their power and influence to cover-up their involvement in the greatest terrorist attack in US history and continue to do so today.

As many American’s know, at least 11 members of the Bin Laden Family were spirited out the country in 24 hours after the 9/11 attacks with the assistance of the George W. Bush Administration. The FBI still denies knowing about the seven airplanes used to move the Bin Ladens out of the country when all private, commercial and military air-travel was grounded.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, orchestrated the exodus of more than 140 Saudis scattered throughout the United States, They included members of two families: one was the royal House of Saud, the family that ruled the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, perhaps the richest family in the world. The other family was the Saud’s close allies, the Bin Ladens, who in addition to owning a multibillion-dollar construction company had produced the notorious terrorist Osama Bin Laden.

Yet none of those spirited out of the country were questioned nor was a list of those leaving supplied. Dan Grossi, a former police officer recruited by the Tampa Police to escort the departing Saudis said he did not get the names of the Saudi he was escorting. “It happened so fast,” Grossi says. “I just knew they were Saudis. They were well connected. One of them told me his father or his uncle was good friends with George Bush Senior.”

The White House denied the flights even took place. Officially, the FBI says it had nothing to do with the repatriation of the Saudis. “I can say unequivocally that the FBI had no role in facilitating these flights one way or another,” said FBI Special Agent John Iannerelli.” Bandar, however, characterized the role of the FBI very differently. “With coordination with the FBI,” he said on CNN, “we got them all out.”

Among those hustled out of the country were Osama’s brother-in-law Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, thought by US Intelligence to be an important figure in Al Qaeda and connected to the men behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and to the October 2000 bombing of the USSCole. Also in the traveling party was Khalil Bin Ladin, who boarded a plane in Orlando to leave the United States and was suspected by Brazilian Intelligence for possible terrorist connections. According to the German wire service Deutsche Presse-Agentur, he had visited Belo Horizonte, Brazil which was a known center for training terrorists. Neither was questioned before leaving the US.

The erudite, Western-educated and Saville Row tailored Prince Bandar was a influential figure in the world of Islam and the power circles of Washington. His father, Defense Minister Prince Sultan, was second in line to the Saudi crown. Bandar was the nephew of King Fahd, the aging Saudi monarch, and the grandson of the late king Abdul Aziz, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia. So close to the Bush family was the Saudi Ambassador that Barbara Bush dubbed him “Bandar Bush.”

So close to the Bush family was the Saudi Ambassador that Barbara Bush dubbed him “Bandar Bush.”

The Bush and bin Laden families have long-standing business dealings. These began in the late 1970’s when Sheik Mohammed bin Laden, the family patriarch and Osama’s father, had, through a friend of the Bush family named James R. Bath, invested $50,000 in Arbusto, the oil exploration company founded by George W. Bush with his father’s help. The “investment” was arranged by James R. Bath, an aircraft broker who had emerged as an agent for the House of Saud in political and business circles.

In 1997, Prince Bandar gave $1 Million to the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum in College Station, Texas. In 1989, King Fahd gave $1 Million to Barbara Bush’s campaign against illiteracy. In 2002 Prince Alwaleed bin Talal gave $500,000 to Andover to fund a George Herbert Walker Bush scholarship. In 2003, Prince Bandar gave a $1-Million oil painting of an American Buffalo hunt to President Bush for use in his presidential library after he leaves the White House.

On September 11, 2001, Shafiq Bin Laden, an “estranged” half-brother of Osama, invested an initial $38 million in the Carlyle Group in Washington, D.C. Carlyle is a $16 billion private equity firm that pays huge fees to “advisors” George H.W. Bush and former Secretary of State James Baker.

On September 11, 2001, Shafiq Bin Laden, an “estranged” half-brother of Osama, invested an initial $38 million in the Carlyle Group in Washington, D.C. Carlyle is a $16 billion private equity firm that pays huge fees to “advisors” George H.W. Bush and former Secretary of State James Baker.

After former president George H.W. Bush, James Baker, and former prime minister John Major of Great Britain visited Saudi Arabia on behalf of Carlyle, the Saudis increased their investment in the Carlyle Group to at least $80 million.

It’s therefore not surprising that the BBC reported that FBI agents in London were pulled off an investigation of Bin Laden family and Saudi royals soon after George W. Bush took office. In addition to Osama Bin Laden, other members of the family had terrorists connections and were under investigation by FBI.

Of the 19 9/11hijackers, 14 were Saudi yet after the attack on American soil FBI Agent John O’Neill stated publicly he was blocked from investigating the Saudi connection for “political reasons.” What political reasons are more important thanthe investigation of the World Trade Center destruction and the murder of 2000 Americans?

More recently, the New York Times and others have reported on an aborted investigation into Saudis who fled Florida two weeks before the 9/11 attack. The investigation into the prominent Saudi family’s ties to the hijackers started on Sept. 19, 2001, and remained active for several years. It was led by the FBI’s Tampa field office but included the bureau’s field offices in New York and Washington.

Incredibly, the FBI identified persons of interest, established their ties to other terrorists, sympathies with Osama bin Laden and anti-American remarks. They examined their bank accounts, colleges and places of employment. They tracked at least one suspect’s re-entry into the US. Yet none of this was never shared with Congress or the 9/11 Commission.

Now it’s being whitewashed again, in a newly released report by the 9/11 Review Commission, set up last year by Congress to assess “any evidence now known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11 Commission.” Though the FBI acknowledges the Saudi family in Florida was investigated, it maintains the probe was a ‘dead end.”

The9/11 review panel included one local FBI report from the Florida investigation that said Abdulaziz and Anoud al-Hijji, the prominent Saudi couple who “fled” their home, had “many connections” to “individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.” The panel’s report also doesn’t explain why visitor security logs for the gated Sarasota community and photos of license tags matched vehicles driven by the hijackers, including 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta.

Former Florida Senator Bob Graham, former Chairman of the US Senate Intelligence Committee has publicly accused the FBI of a ‘cover-up” in the Florida case. Graham said there was no evidence that the Bureau had ever disclosed the Florida investigation to his Committee or the 9/11 Commission, which delivered their report in 2004.

There are still 28 pages of the 9/11 report regarding the Saudis that remain classified and were redacted, wholesale, by President George W. Bush. After reading it, Congressman Thomas Massie described the experience as “disturbing” and said, “I had to stop every two or three pages and rearrange my perception of history…it’s that fundamental.” Intelligence officials say the claims in the secret 28 pages were explored and found to be “unsubstantiated” in a later review by the national commission. If that is the case, why not release them? The Saudis have covered their trail.

Intelligence officials say the claims in the secret 28 pages were explored and found to be “unsubstantiated” in a later review by the national commission.If that is the case, why not release them?The Saudis have covered their trail.

Both the Florida Investigation and the hidden 28 pages of the 9/11 report received more attention this year when an Al Qaeda operative in custody described prominent members of Saudi Arabia’s royal family as major donors to the terrorist network in the late 1990s. The claim by terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, prompted a quick statement from the Saudi Embassy saying 9/11 commission rejected allegations that Saudi officials had funded Al Qaeda.

But Senator Graham who has seen the classified material spilled the beans “The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier,” he said, adding, “I am speaking of the kingdom,” or government, of Saudi Arabia, not just wealthy individual Saudi donors…“ This is a pervasive pattern of covering up the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11 by all of the agencies of the federal government which have access to information that might illuminate Saudi Arabia’s role in 9/11.”

US Intelligence has sought to undermine the credibility of both Graham and Moussaoui, labeling Graham as a past-his-prime publicity seeker and Moussaoui as mentally unstable.

Yet the New York Post reported, “sources who have seen the censored 28 pages say it cites CIA and FBI case files that directly implicate officials of the Saudi Embassy in Washington and its consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks” — which, if true, would make 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war by a foreign government. The section allegedly identifies high-level Saudi officials and intelligence agents by name, and details their financial transactions and other dealings with the San Diego hijackers. It zeroes in on the Islamic Affairs Department of the Saudi Embassy, among other Saudi entities.”

If true, [it] would make 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war by a foreign government.

In fact the Saudi’s are playing a dangerous double game, claiming to be US allies in the war on terror at the same time funding terrorist groups that espouse a violent Wahhabi Islamic ideology that is particular to Saudi Arabia. At the same time, they have used their money and influence to shield the truth from the American people. With their huge contributions to the Clintons, they hope to do it again.

lundi, 16 février 2015

The Warmongering Record of Hillary Clinton

by GARY LEUPP

Ex: http://www.counterpunch.org

If reason and justice prevailed in this country, you’d think that the recent series of articles in the Washington Times concerning the U.S.-NATO attack on Libya in 2011 would torpedo Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects.

Clinton as U.S. Secretary of State at that time knew that Libya was no threat to the U.S. She knew that Muammar Gadhafi had been closely cooperating with the U.S. in combating Islamist extremism. She probably realized that Gadhafi had a certain social base due in part to what by Middle Eastern standards was the relatively equitable distribution of oil income in Libya.

But she wanted to topple Gadhafi. Over the objections of Secretary of “Defense” Robert Gates but responding to the urgings of British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicholas Sarkozy, she advocated war. Why? Not for the reason advertised at the time. (Does this sound familiar?) Not because Gadhafy was preparing a massacre of the innocents in Benghazi, as had occurred in Rwanda in 1994. (That episode, and the charge that the “international community” had failed to intervene, was repeatedly referenced by Clinton and other top officials, as a shameful precedent that must not be repeated. It had also been deployed by Bill Clinton in 1999, when he waged war on Serbia, grossly exaggerating the extent of carnage in Kosovo and positing the immanent prospect of “genocide” to whip up public support. Such uses of the Rwandan case reflect gross cynicism.)

No, genocide was not the issue, in Libya any more than in Kosovo. According to the Washington Times, high-ranking U.S. officials indeed questioned whether there was evidence for such a scenario in Libya. The Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that a mere 2,000 Libyan troops armed with 12 tanks were heading to Benghazi, and had killed about 400 rebels by the time the U.S. and NATO attacked. It found evidence for troops firing on unarmed protestors but no evidence of mass killing. It did not have a good estimate on the number of civilians in Benghazi but had strong evidence that most had fled. It had intelligence that Gadhafy had ordered that troops not fire on civilians but only on armed rebels.

The Pentagon doubted that Gadhafi would risk world outrage by ordering a massacre. One intelligence officer told the Washington Times that the decision to bomb was made on the basis of “light intelligence.” Which is to say, lies, cherry-picked information such as a single statement by Gadhafi (relentlessly repeated in the corporate press echoing State Department proclamations) that he would “sanitize Libya one inch at a time” to “clear [the country] of these rats.” (Similar language, it was said, had been used by Hutu leaders in Rwanda.) Now that the rats in their innumerable rival militias control practically every square inch of Libya, preventing the emergence of an effective pro-western government, many at the Pentagon must be thinking how stupid Hillary was.

No, the attack was not about preventing a Rwanda-like genocide. Rather, it was launched because the Arab Spring, beginning with the overthrow of the two dictators, President Ben Ali of Tunisia and President Mubarak of Egypt, had taken the west by surprise and presented it with a dilemma: to retain longstanding friendships (including that with Gadhafi, who’d been a partner since 2003) in the face of mass protests, or throw in its lot with the opposition movements, who seemed to be riding an inevitable historical trend, hoping to co-opt them?

Recall how Obama had declined up to the last minute to order Mubarak to step down, and how Vice President Joe Biden had pointedly declined to describe Mubarak as a dictator. Only when millions rallied against the regime did Obama shift gears, praise the youth of Egypt for their inspiring mass movement, and withdraw support for the dictatorship. After that Obama pontificated that Ali Saleh in Yemen (a key ally of the U.S. since 2001) had to step down in deference to protesters. Saleh complied, turning power to another U.S. lackey (who has since resigned). Obama also declared that Assad in Syria had “lost legitimacy,” commanded him to step down, and began funding the “moderate” armed opposition in Syria. (The latter have at this point mostly disappeared or joined al-Qaeda and its spin-offs. Some have turned coat and created the “Loyalists’ Army” backing Assad versus the Islamist crazies.)

Hillary, that supposedly astute stateswoman, believed that the Arab Spring was going to topple all the current dictators of the Middle East and that, given that, the U.S. needed to position itself as the friend of the opposition movements. Gadhafy was a goner, she reasoned, so shouldn’t the U.S. help those working towards his overthrow?

Of course the U.S. (or the combination of the U.S. and NATO) couldn’t just attack a sovereign state to impose regime change. It would, at any rate, have been politically damaging after the regime change in Iraq that had been justified on the basis of now well discredited lies. So the U.S. arm-twisted UNSC members to approve a mission to protect civilians in Libya against state violence. China and Russia declined to use their veto power (although as western duplicity and real motives became apparent, they came to regret this). The Libya campaign soon shifted from “peace-keeping” actions such as the imposition of a “no-fly” zone to overt acts of war against the Gadhafy regime, which for its part consistently insisted that the opposition was aligned with al-Qaeda.

The results of “Operation Unified Protector” have of course been absolutely disastrous. Just as the U,S. and some of its allies wrecked Iraq, producing a situation far worse than that under Saddam Hussein, so they have inflicted horrors on Libya unknown during the Gadhafi years. These include the persecution of black Africans and Tuaregs, the collapse of any semblance of central government, the division of the country between hundreds of warring militias, the destabilization of neighboring Mali producing French imperialist intervention, the emergence of Benghazi as an al-Qaeda stronghold, and the proliferation of looted arms among rebel groups. The “humanitarian intervention” was in fact a grotesque farce and huge war crime.

But the political class and punditry in this country do not attack Hillary for war crimes, or for promoting lies to promote a war of aggression. Rather, they charge her and the State Department with failure to protect U.S. ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens and other U.S. nationals from the attack that occurred in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. And they fault her for promoting the State Department’s initial “talking point” that the attack had been a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube film rather than a calculated terrorist attack. They pan her for sniping at a senator during a hearing, “What difference does it make (whether the attack had been launched by protestors spontaneously, or was a terrorist action planned by forces unleashed by the fall of the Gadhafi regime)”?

In other words: Hillary’s mainstream critics are less concerned with the bombing of Libya in 2011 that killed over 1100 civilians, and produced the power vacuum exploited by murderous jihadis, than by Hillary’s alleged concealment of evidence that might show the State Department inadequately protected U.S. diplomats from the consequences of the U.S.-orchestrated regime change itself. In their view, the former First Lady might have blood on her hands—but not that, mind you, of Libyan civilians, or Libyan military forces going about their normal business, or of Gadhafi who was sodomized with a knife while being murdered as Washington applauded.

No, she’s held accountable for the blood of these glorified, decent upstanding Americans who’d been complicit in the ruin of Libya.

This version of events is easy to challenge. It’s easy to show that Clinton skillfully—in full neocon mode, spewing disinformation to a clueless public—steered an attack an attack on Libya that has produced enormous blowback and ongoing suffering for the Libyan people. If a right-wing paper like Washington Times can expose this, how much more the more “mainstream” press? Could they at least not raise for discussion whether what Rand Paul calls “Hillary’s war” was, like the Iraq War (and many others) based on lies? Shouldn’t Hillary be hammered with the facts of her history, and her vaunted “toughness” be exposed as callous indifference to human life?

* * *

While championing the rights of women and children, arguing that “it takes a village” to raise a child, Clinton has endorsed the bombing of villages throughout her public life. Here are some talking points for those appalled by the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

*She has always been a warmonger. As First Lady from January 1993, she encouraged her husband Bill and his secretary of state Madeleine Albright to attack Serbian forces in the disintegrating Yugoslavia—in Bosnia in 1994 and Serbia in 1999. She’s stated that in 1999 she phoned her husband from Africa. “I urged him to bomb,” she boasts. These Serbs were (as usual) forces that did not threaten the U.S. in any way. The complex conflicts and tussles over territory between ethnic groups in the Balkans, and the collapse of the Russian economy following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, gave Bill Clinton an excuse to posture as the world’s savior and to use NATO to impose order. Only the United States, he asserted, could restore order in Yugoslavia, which had been a proudly neutral country outside NATO and the Warsaw Pact throughout the Cold War. President Clinton and Albright also claimed that only NATO—designed in 1949 to counter a supposed Soviet threat to Western Europe, but never yet deployed in battle—should deal with the Balkan crises.

The Bosnian intervention resulted in the imposition of the “Dayton Accord” on the parties involved and the creation of the dysfunctional state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Kosovo intervention five years later (justified by the scaremongering, subsequently disproven reports of a Serbian genocidal campaign against Kosovars) involved the NATO bombing of Belgrade and resulted in the dismemberment of Serbia. Kosovo, now recognized by the U.S. and many of its allies as an independent state, is the center of Europe’s heroin trafficking and the host of the U.S.’s largest army base abroad. The Kosovo war, lacking UN support and following Albright’s outrageous demand for Serbian acquiescence—designed, as she gleefully conceded, “to set the bar too high” for Belgrade and Moscow’s acceptance—of NATO occupation of all of Serbia, was an extraordinary provocation to Serbia’s traditional ally Russia. “They need some bombing, and that’s what they are going to get,” Albright said at the time, as NATO prepared to bomb a European capital for the first time since 1945.

*Clinton has been a keen advocate for the expansion of an antiquated Cold War military alliance that persists in provoking Russia. In the same year that NATO bombed Belgrade (1999), the alliance expanded to include Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. But Clinton’s predecessor George H. W. Bush had promised Russia in 1989 that NATO would not expand eastward. And since the Warsaw Pact had been dissolved in 1991, and since Russia under Boris Yeltsin hardly threatened any western countries, this expansion has understandably been viewed in Russia as a hostile move. George Kennan, a former U.S. ambassador to the USSR and a father of the “containment” doctrine, in 1998 pronounced the expansion a “tragic mistake” with “no reason whatsoever.” But the expansion continued under George W. Bush and has continued under Obama. Russia is now surrounded by an anti-Russian military alliance from its borders with the Baltic states to the north to Romania and Bulgaria. U.S.-backed “color revolutions” have been designed to draw more countries into the NATO camp. Hillary as secretary of state was a big proponent of such expansion, and under her watch, two more countries (Albania and Croatia) joined the U.S.-dominated alliance.

(To understand what this means to Russia, imagine how Washington would respond to a Russia-centered “defensive” military alliance requiring its members to spend 2% of their GDPs on military spending and coordinate military plans with Moscow incorporating Canada and all the Caribbean countries, surrounding the continental U.S., and now moving to include Mexico. Would this not be a big deal for U.S. leaders?)

*As New York senator Clinton endorsed the murderous ongoing sanctions against Iraq, imposed by the UN in 1990 and continued until 2003. Initially applied to force Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, the sanctions were sustained at U.S. insistence (and over the protests of other Security Council members) up to and even beyond the U.S. invasion in 2003. Bill Clinton demanded their continuance, insisting that Saddam Hussein’s (non-existent) secret WMD programs justified them. In 1996, three years into the Clinton presidency, Albright was asked whether the death of half a million Iraq children as a result of the sanctions was justified, and famously replied in a television interview, “We think it was worth it.” Surely Hillary agreed with her friend and predecessor as the first woman secretary of state. She also endorsed the 1998 “Operation Desert Fox” (based on lies, most notably the charge that Iraq had expelled UN inspectors) designed to further destroy Iraq’s military infrastructure and make future attacks even easier.

*She was a strident supporter of the Iraq War. As a New York senator from 2001 to 2009, Hillary aligned herself with the neoconservatives in the Bush administration, earning a reputation as a hawk. She was a fervent supportive of the attack on Iraq, based on lies, in 2003. On the floor of the Senate she echoed all the fictions about Saddam Hussein’s “chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.” She declared, “He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.” She suggested that her decision to support war was “influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation.” (Presumably by the latter she meant the threats posed by Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo.) Her loss to Obama in the Democratic primary in 2008 was due largely to Obama’s (supposed) antiwar position contrasting with her consistently pro-war position. She has only vaguely conceded that her support for the invasion was something of a mistake. But she blames her vote on others, echoing Dick Cheney’s bland suggestion that the problem was “intelligence failures.” “If we knew know then what we know now,” she stated as she began her presidential campaign in late 2006, “I certainly wouldn’t have voted” for the war.

*She actively pursued anti-democratic regime change in Ukraine. As secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Clinton as noted above endorsed NATO’s relentless expansion. She selected to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs the neocon Victoria Nuland, who had been the principal deputy foreign advisor to Cheney when he was vice president. The wife of neocon pundit Robert Kagan, Nuland is a war hawk whose current mission in life is the full encirclement of Russia with the integration of Ukraine into the EU and then into NATO. The ultimate goal was the expulsion of the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the Crimean Peninsula (where it has been stationed since 1783). She has boasted of the fact that the U.S. has invested five billion dollars in supporting what she depicts as the Ukrainian people’s “European aspirations.” What this really means is that the U.S. exploited political divisions in Ukraine to topple an elected leader and replace him with Nuland’s handpicked prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyev, deploying neo-Nazi shock troops in the process and generating a civil war that has killed over 5000 people.

Clinton has increasingly vilified Vladimir Putin, the popular Russian president, absurdly comparing the Russian re-annexation of the Crimean Peninsula following a popular referendum with Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland. She is totally on board the program of producing a new Cold War, and forcing European allies to cooperate in isolating the former superpower.

*She wanted to provide military assistance to the “moderate” armed opposition in Syria, to effect regime change, and after leaving office criticized Obama for not supplying more than he did. In 2011 Clinton wanted the U.S. to arm rebels who quickly became aligned with the al-Nusra Front (an al-Qaeda affiliate) and other extreme Islamists, in order to bring down a secular regime that respects religious rights, rejects the implementation of Sharia law, and promotes the education of women. The U.S. indeed has supplied arms to anti-Assad forces from at least January 2014, But as it happens the bulk of U.S. aid to the “moderate rebels” has been appropriated by Islamists, and some of it is deployed against U.S. allies in Iraq. It is now widely understood that the bulk of “moderate” rebels are either in Turkish exile or directed by CIA agents, while the U.S. plans to train some 5000 new recruits in Jordan. Meanwhile Assad has won election (as fair as any held in a U.S. client state like Afghanistan or Iraq) and gained the upper hand in the civil war. U.S. meddling in Syria has empowered the Islamic State that now controls much of Syria and Iraq.

*She has been an unremitting supporter of Israeli aggression, whenever it occurs. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz described her last year as “Israel’s new lawyer” given her sympathetic view of Binyamin Netanyahu’s 2014 bombardment of Gaza and even his desire to maintain “security” throughout the occupied West Bank. She postured as an opponent of Israel’s unrelenting, illegal settlements of Palestinian territory in 2009, but backed down when Netanyahu simply refused to heed U.S. calls for a freeze. In her memoir she notes “our early, hard line on settlements didn’t work”—as though she’s apologizing for it.

In 1999 as First Lady, Hillary Clinton hugged and kissed Yassir Arafat’s wife Suha during a trip to the West Bank. She advocated the establishment of a Palestinian state. She changed her tune when she ran for the New York Senate seat. When it comes to the Middle East, she is a total, unprincipled opportunist.

*Hillary tacitly endorsed the military coup against elected Honduran president Manuel Zelaya in 2009, refusing to call it such (even though Obama did). She made common cause with those who feared his effort to poll the people about constitutional reform would weaken their positions, made nice with the ensuing regime and made sure Zelaya would not return to office.

*She provoked China by siding with Japan in the Senkaku/ Daioyutai dispute. Departing from the State Department’s traditional stance that “we take no position” on the Sino-Japanese dispute about sovereignty over the Senkaku/ Daioyutai islands in the East China Sea, seized by Japan in 1895, Clinton as secretary of state emphasized that the islands fall within the defense perimeters of the U.S.-Japanese alliance. The warmongering neocon National Review in a piece entitled “In Praise of Hillary Clinton” praised her for “driving the Chinese slightly up a wall.”

*She helped bring down a Japanese prime minister who heeded the feelings of the people of Okinawa, who opposed the Futenma Marine Corps Air Force Station on the island. The new president Yukio Hatoyama, whose Democratic Party of Japan defeated the slavishly pro-U.S. Liberal Democratic Party in the general election of 2009, had promised to move the hated U.S. base in the heart of Ginowan city for the noise, air pollution and public safety hazards it causes. Clinton met with him, listened sympathetically, and said “no.” Hatoyama was obliged to apologize to the people of Okinawa, essentially conceding that Japan remains an occupied nation that doesn’t enjoy sovereignty. Nationwide his public support ratings fell from 70 to 17% and he was obliged to resign in shame after eight months in office.

*She made countless trips to India, signing bilateral economic and nuclear cooperation agreements with a country her husband had placed under sanctions for its nuclear tests in 1998. While castigating North Korea for its nuclear weapons program, and taking what a CIA analyst called a “more hard line, more conditional, more neoconservative [approach] than Bush during the last four years of his term,” she signaled that India’s nukes were no longer an issue for the U.S. India is, after all, a counterweight to China.

What can those who revere her point to in this record that in any way betters the planet or this country? Clinton’s record of her tenure in the State Department is entitled Hard Choices, but it has never been hard for Hillary to choose brute force in the service of U.S. imperialism and its controlling 1%.

This is a country of 323 million people. 88% of those over 25 have graduated high school. The world respects U.S. culture, science, and technology. Why is it that out of our well-educated, creative masses the best that the those who decide these things—the secretive cliques within the two official, indistinguishable political parties who answer to the 1% and who decide how to market electoral products—can come up with is the likely plate of candidates for the presidential election next year? Why is it that, while we all find it ridiculous that North Korea’s ruled by its third Kim, Syria by its second Assad, and Cuba by its second Castro, the U.S. electorate may well be offered a choice between another Clinton and another Bush? As though their predecessors of those surnames were anything other than long-discredited warmongering thugs?

jeudi, 04 septembre 2014

Hillary Clinton is the grandmother of the Islamic Caliphate

Hillary Clinton is fond of changing history in order to put herself in the best possible light. As First Lady, she claimed that in 1996 that she dodged sniper fire while visiting Sarajevo, the capital of civil war-torn Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was a good story and, initially, she received praise for her «heroism under fire» from a typically sycophantic press. However, the story was false. Mrs. Clinton never came under sniper fire. She lied. And the lies of the one-time and prospective presidential candidate did not stop with Bosnia. According to one person close to the ex-First Lady, her first major book, «Living History», was full of so many lies and half-truths, it should have been sold under the heading of «fiction».

Mrs. Clinton is currently rejecting charges that it was her policy of destabilizing Libya and Syria that led to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (or, at it is also called, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) or the Islamic State («al-Dawlah»). Clinton’s minions of idolizers and neo-conservative war hawks call such claims a «conspiracy theory», the favorite pejorative for those who suffer from a bankruptcy of facts. In fact, Clinton’s boasting about the extrajudicial execution of Libyan leader Muammar al Qaddafi, in which she cackled, «We came, we saw, he died», along with her vow to unseat Syrian President Bashar al Assad, after having publicly praised him in March 2011, provides evidence of her constant lying and changing of facts to suit her own purposes.

Clinton’s intervention in Syria and Libya, and the replacement of unifying governments with weaker regimes plagued by civil war, as well as separatist movements and Islamic emirates and caliphates vying for political control, were in the best interests of Israel. Ever since Israel developed the «Clean Break» strategy in the early 1990s, the division of Arab states by civil war and secessionist movements and religious turmoil and fratricide has been the goal of Israeli ultra-Zionists and right-wing political leaders, including Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Mrs. Clinton’s good friend and oft-mentioned vice presidential candidate, former NATO commander General Wesley Clark, let the cat out of the bag in 2007 when he revealed on a television program partly funded by hedge fund mogul George Soros that he saw a classified Pentagon memorandum, which stated that seven countries would be «taken out» by the United States in five years. Clark said he saw the memo around September 20, 2001, just a week after the 9/11 attack on the United States. After the United States invaded and occupied Iraq, the next six countries on the American «hit list» were Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finally, Iran.

Although it took more than five years for Syria and Libya to fall, the Hillary Clinton-initiated «Responsibility to Protect» (R2P) operation to back Islamist opposition groups against Qaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia.

Clark wrote the NATO book on destabilizing countries and militarily squaring off against Russia. His operations in the Balkans as NATO commander ensured that the former Yugoslavia fragmented into seven different countries, including Montenegro and Kosovo. Clark never condemned the 2001 plan to take out seven countries in five years, he merely said military force should be used as a last resort. But Clark seems very comfortable with the R2P operations that resulted in ISIL seizing control of large swaths of Syria and Iraq and other Islamist rebels seizing control of most of Libya. Clark also endorsed the Israeli action that demolished Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat's Ramallah headquarters in 2002. Clark’s backing of Clinton’s interventionist policy in the Middle East, which is aligned with Israel’s «Clean Break» strategy of scrapping every peace accord with the Palestinians from Madrid to Oslo, should be no surprise when considering Clark’s family background. Although he is ostensibly a Roman Catholic, Clark is the son of Benjamin Kanne, a «Kohen» (priest) who hailed from a long line of Belarusian Talmud-wielding rabbis. Clark’s disdain for Russians was on full display during the Kosovo crisis. Considering his roots, it is also no surprise that Clark shares Clinton’s advocacy for Israel. Clinton and Clark on the same ticket in 2016 would further threaten the Middle East, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and other parts of the world.

Considering the fact that Israel’s Mossad and Defense Forces have jointly coordinated attacks on Assad’s forces in Syria with Jabhat al Nusra, an ally of ISIL, and that Mossad and Saudi Mukhabarat General Intelligence Service chiefs have held a number of secret meetings, there is little doubt that the Clinton plan all along was to create an Islamic caliphate from the remnants of what was once the strong and united Arab secular and socialist republics of Syria, Iraq, and Libya. When the ISIL-allied Nusra Front took over the Syrian-Israeli border crossing at Quneitra in the Golan Heights, the Israeli military coordinated its ground fire on Syrian government positions in a manner that assisted the Islamist radicals. Similarly, Israeli connections to an ISIL cell in Gaza was used by the Israelis to suggest that Hamas was losing control over the Palestinian enclave. Israel has also been caught red-handed assisting ISIL-related groups in Lebanon that have attacked Hezbollah. All of Israel’s actions are in keeping with the «Clean Break» policy Version 2.0.

ISIL has already seized large portions of the prospective caliphate’s province of Sham, which is composed of Syria and parts of western Iraq. Other parts of Sham that ISIL intends to «liberate» are Lebanon and Jordan. In North Africa, the Islamist Ansar al-Sharia and other allied Islamist groups have seized most of eastern Cyrenaica and large parts of Tripolitania, including Tripoli itself. These groups intend to link up with Boko Haram in Nigeria, which has already declared a caliphate in the northeastern Nigerian town of Gwoza in Borno state. Boko Haram’s caliphate also includes Damboa in Borno, Buni Yadi in Yobe state, and Madagali in Adamawa state. The much-ballyhooed U.S. Africa Command has taken no action to suppress the rise of the caliphate in Nigeria and neighboring Cameroon. As with the military acquisitions of ISIL in Syria and Iraq, Boko Haram has captured at least one military base, along with equipment, in Nigeria.

Boko Haram, along with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar Dine in Mali, intend to spread the caliphate to Tunisia, Algeria, Mali, Morocco, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Ivory Coast, and the rest of West Africa as the Caliphate’s «Province of Maghreb». The ISIL-allied Salafists of Cyrenaica, Egypt, northern Sudan and Darfur plan for the establishment of the Caliphate’s «Province of Alkinana».

ISIL’s caliphate also includes the Horn of Africa, including largely Christian Ethiopia and Kenya, as well as the Central African Republic, Chad, Cameroon, Rwanda, and South Sudan as the «Land of Habasha». The Al Shabaab guerrillas have established a caliphate-loyal «Islamic Emirate of Somalia» in areas of that failed state that it controls. The area of Africa ISIL intends to conquer has seen its share of genocide but that will be nothing compared to what awaits it under the Caliphate.

ISIL said it intends to conquer Spain and Portugal and restore «Al Andalus» as part of the «Greater Caliphate». ISIL’s plans to turn southern Arabia into the province of «Yaman» will come at the bloody expense of the Zaidi Houthis of North Yemen and the secular-minded South Yemeni independence restoration movement. In any event, the Sauds will continue to rule their kingdom, whether it is called Arabia or «Hejaz». ISIL, spawned with Saudi support, will be the centurions and enforcers for the House of Saud and their Israeli allies. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has already established a caliphate satellite, the Emirate of Waqar, in Yemen.

The estimated one thousand Chechens fighting for ISIL in Syria and Iraq can be expected to help threaten to Caucasus after their planned victories in Sham, Iraq, «Kordistan», and Iran. ISIL refers to the Caucasus region, including Chechnya, Dagestan, plus Crimea, southern Ukraine (including Odessa), as «Qoqzaz». In the sights of the Caliphate are Anathol, present-day Turkey, and Orobpa, the present day Balkans, plus Hungary, Moldova, and Austria. Perhaps it has not dawned on the Obama administration and its European Union and NATO allies that the destabilization of Ukraine wrought by the fascist regime in Kiev plays right into the hands of ISIL’s plans to take control of southern Ukraine and Crimea with the help of sympathetic Caucasus Muslims, Turks, and Crimean Tatars.

The Caliphate’s threat to bring large portions of central Asia and western China, Tibet, Nepal, all of India (except for Sikkim and the northeastern states where a self-described Jewish people called the B’nei Menashe live in Mizoram and Manipur states), Sri Lanka, Maldives, Pakistan (where an Islamic Emirate loyal to the caliphate has already been established in Waziristan), Afghanistan (where the Taliban calls areas under its control the «Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan», and Russia (where the Caucasus Emirate is attempting to gain territory) under its control as part of «Khurasan» fits in nicely with the West’s plans to disrupt the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) alliances. BRICS and SCO firmly stand opposed to Western political and economic imperialism. In addition, hundreds of Southeast Asian Muslim radicals are reportedly fighting within the ISIL ranks in Iraq and Syria. They have all announced plans to return to Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, the Rakhine state of Burma, southern Thailand, and Mindanao in the Philippines to incorporate those countries and regions into the Caliphate.

Mrs. Clinton and her band of war hawks and Israeli friends created the conditions that have allowed a group like ISIL to massacre Shi’as, Kurds, Assyrian Christians, Alawites, Yazidis, Turkoman, Sunni tribesmen, Druze, and others from Aleppo and Quneitra to Mosul, Kirkuk, and the outskirts of Erbil and Baghdad. If they have their way, ISIL will be crucifying and beheading Copts in Egypt, Christians and Shi’as in Lebanon, Zoroastrians and Shi’as in Iran, Shi’as in Tajikistan, and Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists in India. Mrs. Clinton, the actual «grandmother of ISIL», has left President Obama with an extremely unstable situation that she intends to use as a wedge issue against him and his foreign policy in the 2016 election. Ever since 9/11, the West has fallen time and time again for the psychological warfare themes and schemes hatched in Israel and the neocon boiler shops and think tanks of Washington, DC. If ISIL is eliminated as a threat, as it must be, their true sponsors should also be unmasked and flushed out.

«What is it about America's women diplomats? They seem so hard and cloned – bereft of any humanity or intelligence. Presumably, these women are supposed to represent social advance for the female gender. But, far from displaying female independence, they are just a pathetic copy of the worst traits in American male politicians – aggressive, arrogant and completely arrant in their views.

»Take Victoria Nuland … […]

»Next up is Wendy Sherman, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, who is also Washington's top negotiator in the P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran. Sherman is another flinty-eyed female specimen of the American political class, who, like Nuland, seems to have a block of ice for a heart and a frozen Popsicle for a brain. Again, like Nuland, Sherman aims to excel in her political career by sounding even more macho, morose and moronic than her male American peers.

»Last week, Sherman was giving testimony before the US Senate foreign affairs committee on the upcoming negotiations with Iran over the interim nuclear agreement. The panel was chaired by the warmongering Democrat Senator Robert Menendez, who wants to immediately ramp up more sanctions on Iran, as well as back the Israeli regime in any preemptive military strike on the Islamic Republic.

»Sherman's performance was a craven display of someone who has been brainwashed to mouth a mantra of falsehoods with no apparent ability to think for herself. It's scary that such people comprise the government of the most nuclear-armed-and-dangerous state in the world…»

»If a senior U.S. government official made public statements about “deception” or some other negative character trait being “part of the DNA” of Jews, people of African origin, or most other ethnic groups, that official would—rightly—be fired or forced to resign, and would probably not be allowed back into “polite society” until after multiple groveling apologies and a long period of penance. But a senior U.S. official can make such a statement about Iranians—or almost certainly about any other ethnic group a majority of whose members are Muslim—and that’s just fine...»